About your Search

20130107
20130115
STATION
MSNBCW 44
CNNW 19
CSPAN 18
MSNBC 7
CSPAN2 6
KQED (PBS) 6
LINKTV 5
KRCB (PBS) 4
WHUT (Howard University Television) 4
CNN 3
FBC 2
KGO (ABC) 2
WETA 2
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 157
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 157 (some duplicates have been removed)
this into the context of the upcoming elections in israel. anything that looks like a stressed to israel, or makes israel look like the victim peltz benjamin netanyahu. it is not just a coincidence that the people who reject chuck hagel are the same people who support benjamin netanyahu appeared they have not learned a lesson from the presidential election where they supported mitt romney and they ended up losing. it is not just opposing or not opposing a candidate. >> how is chuck hagel's nomination being played out in israel in light of the upcoming elections two weeks away? >> it adds another and dimension mo benjamin netanyahu's clai that israel is isolated not because of its policy but because of anti-semitism, groups trying to delegitimize israel and that means we need a strong leader, one that can give a good fight to those anti-semites surrounding us. so it really it helps benton .-- really helps netanyahu and the americans don't understand what israel is facing right now. >> let's go back to the criticism for second. what exactly are the criticisms against chuck hagel by some of the pro-i
to justify. you know how the sunlight foundation added up political spending in this past election to see who got the most bang for their buck in their political spending? it was really bad on the right. the republican party's house campaign committee spent almost $65 million, but only 32% of what they spent went to campaigns in which their candidate was successful. so two-to-one, their money was spent on losing. it was worse for the republican party's senate campaign. for their investment of $32 million, only 24% paid off in terms of races that went the way they wanted to. three to one, their money was spent losing. freedomworks was about the same. and the chamber of commerce, which is supposed to be such an impressible and unassailable campaign juggernaut, the chamber of commerce spent $32 million, but less than 7% of what they spent went to winning candidates they wanted to win, or against losing candidates that they wanted to lose. less than 7%. they were 93% ineffective in what they spent. even worse than that was karl rove's american crossroads, which was like the conservative politics
and have a good day. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> a record number of women were elected to the u.s. u.s. house and senate in november. there are now more women in the u.s. u.s. senate. conversation women candidates who ran for office in 2012. this 35 minute event is hosted by emily's list which is a political action committee that supports pro-choice women candidates running for congress and governor. >> the national press club here and we are privileged to have stephanie schriock, the president of emily's list to be here today. as they well should after their spectacular when in the last presidential election. stephanie has been very active in democratic circles. she was national finance director for howard dean's 2004 election. she then helped the united states senator john -- unseat an 18-year-old incumbent in the state of montana. stephanie also managed the campaign of senator franken in minnesota and she defeated norm colman. correct? she is a graduate of man caught a state university in minnesota and she grew up in montana. here is stephanie, the president of emily's list w
to get his picks into his cabinet. and coming after losing the presidential election, losing seats in the house and senate, to democrats, the republicans have been looking for a way to ding the president. they were able to ding him by denying him the choice of susan rice, the u.n. ambassador to be the president's next secretary of state. they view going after chuck hagel as being one more notch in this crazy war against the president when a lot of people in the country want congress to focus not so much on chuck hagel as they want them to focus on what's happening with sequester and the budget and debt ceiling and other things that have direct impacts on people's lives. from a policy standpoint, does this come down to bush era neocon, that reminds them that he opposed the war. >> he did oppose the surge. for republicans this is about somebody whom they disagree with on policy and never liked that much in the senate because he wasn't the kind of senator that had a lot of friends, that played the relationship game at a high level. and so it's not like he has solid friendships that ca
decision in the wake of president obama's re-election. the republican party is divided. that's being isolated and ignored by the right wingers. that's a problem for the gop. that southern dominance may sentence the entire party to irrelevance. >>> conservative ideologues are itching for another fight with president obama, this time saying they may shut down the government altogether or risk a credit catastrophe. could somebody remind these guys who won the election, again. >>> plus, the nra has made its position clear. the answer to gun violence, more guns. we have evidence that posting armed guards everywhere has the exact opposite effect. the latest battle lines as the obama administration moves to curb the availability of assault weapons. >>> let me finish with why this nomination of chuck hagel should be given a solid, solid chance, and this is "hardball," the place for politics, >>> hillary clinton is back at work at the state department. this morning she chaired the weekly meeting of the department's leadership team, and one thing on the agenda will be testifying on capitol hil
. >> this is one that has taken a back burner. we are not that far removed from the election. the election was about by and large nothing more than the economy and which side could do it better. as a result almost every other issue gets pushed to the side, but we have, you know -- there are realtime tables in place in afghanistan about what we have pledged to do, what we will do. you talk about chuck hagel. what chuck hagel's role in all of that, if et wants to be secretary of defense. it's a complicated issue, and it's more complicated politically, andrea, simply because the american public -- this happened in iraq. it's clearly happening in afghanistan. the american public has tired of our involvement in these conflicts. this is not something new. this is something that has been long and coming. if you look at the history in polling at least of when that happens, public opinion almost never sort of sways back up to all of a sudden be supportive and think this was a battle worth fighting and those sorts of things. it's dangerous ground for any politician because of that. >> we are seeing
's called americans for responsible solutions. they say their goal is to, quote, encourage elected officials to stand up for solutions that will prevent gun violence. it's a new political pressure group, in other words. congresswoman gabby giffords and her husband launched this today in a high profile, well done media blitz. they sat through a moving interview with diane sawyer. they published a joint op ed in usa today where they demanded change from washington. but they also pointed to their own unique role in this fight, not just with the former congresswoman as a victim of gun violence, but with her having been a member of congress who was a staunch supporter of the second amendment. gabby giffords was a very pro-gun rights democratic member of congress. she and her husband are not commie liberal pinkos coming to confiscate yours guns. they are both gun owners themselves. "forget the boogie man of big bad government coming to dispossess you of your firearms. as a western woman and a persian gulf war combat veteran who have exercised our second amendment rights, we do not want to take awa
it will end up? >> well, i think all through the election season, all they ever talk about was leaving afghanistan, but this is real. this was a very big deal this week and a very big change. u.s. troops will be in an advise and train -- that's all they'll be doing come spring. >> pulling back from the front lines. >> pulling back from the front lines. they will be with afghan forces. the president has not announced how fast they'll draw down but i suspect by the end of this year we could be down to 30,000 troops. we're 66,000 troops now, possibly down to 30,000 and when we really draw down in 2014, when we are no longer doing combat missions, i think you'll see anywhere from only 6,000 to 9,000 and the important thing to remember about that, george, is two details. tail means the enablers, the support, we would really have if we had 3,000 troops there, we would really have only 800 trigger pullers. you'll see a lot of counterterrorism action, all of those things joe biden talked about a long time ago. i think that's all we'll have there in the future. >> senator corker, are you comfor
. >> woodruff: karzai has been dogged by charges of fraud since his re-election, part of larger concerns about corruption in his government. he acknowledged the concerns today, and said he hopes for a proper election to name his successor. >> brown: we pick up on today's meeting with two men with extensive experience in managing u.s.-afghan relations. said jawad was afghanistan's ambassador to washington from 2003 to 2010. before that, he was president karzai's chief of staff. and peter tomsen was a career diplomat who served as special envoy on afghanistan during the george h.w. bush administration. he's the author of "the wars of afghanistan." peter tomsen, let's start with you. what jumps out at you. help us decode what was in that meeting, what was most pournt. >> is think what jumped out at me mostly was the acceleration in the transition. which i think is good. that american troops are going to be leaving at a faster clip. and also on the function side, so to speak that the role of american troops in combat as was mentioned in the clip is going to be phased out. also, what president karz
was about keeping washington in check. not this time. >> presidents have a way of getting re-elected and deciding how about i do what i want to do. how about i choose who i'm comfortable with. and they have extra confidence that they can do that. and they should be able to do it. and -- >> there is sort of -- you know, it's -- by the way, it's also why they've had this diversity issue a little bit, not thinking about that. >> it doesn't explain why he didn't stand behind susan rice. if that was really his view. he's choosing the fight over hagel, in part i'm sure because he gave up on susan rice. why didn't he do it for her? >> it's possible he never was for susan the way others were. there really was a split in that white house. >> it looked like it had touched a personal cord with him when she was being criticized. may be separate from whether he wanted her for the job. i think the attitude is what's driving this on hagel. and i think his comfort level, his knowledge that if he's going to deal with defense budget cuts, he wants a republican in there. i'm not sure as andrea mitchell
is behind me. i won this election convincingly. now, i'm not sure how much the debt ceiling played into the election for average voters, but i think president obama is trying to say, look, i have a mandate. i won a second term amid this economic crisis, amid questions about my handling of it, and now it's up to you guys, whether you want to deal with me or deal with the consequences. >> and he knows the difference in his popularity compared to the congressional popularity. >> right. >> susan page, we talked about this on friday. now, the question that jackie of the "new york times" asked of the president. the lack of diversity in his frontline cabinet appointments so far, this was his response. >> i would just suggest that everybody kind of wait until they've seen all my appointments, who is in the white house staff and who is in my cabinet before they rush to judgment. >> well, was that compelling and persuasive and convincing? >> well, i think we should expect the next appointments to have some female faces, whether they're top aides to the treasury secretary or the new budget di
ben cramer wrote "what it takes," a thousand-plus page book about the 1988 presidential election. the book chronicled the personalities and idiosyncrasies of candidates like bob dole, mike dukakis, and george herbert walker bush. nbc first read calls it the unofficial textbook of washington. if you haven't read it, then you don't get it. richard ben cramer was 62. we'll be right back. ♪ i have direct deposit on my visa prepaid. my paycheck is loaded right on my card. automatic. i am not going downtown standing in line to cash it. i know where my money is, because it is in my pocket. i got more time with my daughter, we got places to go. [ freeman ] go open a new world, with visa prepaid. more people go with visa. >>> welcome back to "hardball." it's been 25 days since the shooting in newtown, connecticut, and two years since the massacre in tucson that left six dead and injured u.s. congresswoman gabrielle giffords. the vice president is spearheading a gun control task force in response, and outside organizations are organized to make sure this time gun laws are strengthened. g
election. the book chronicled the personalities and idiosyncrasies of candidates like bob dole, mike dukakis, and george herbert walker bush. nbc first read calls it the unofficial textbook of washington. if you haven't read it, then you don't get it. richard ben cramer was 62. we'll be right back. >>> welcome back to "hardball." it's been 25 days since the shooting in newtown, connecticut, and two years since the massacre in tucson that left six dead and injured u.s. congresswoman gabrielle giffords. the vice president is spearheading a gun control task force in response, and outside organizations are organized to make sure this time gun laws are strengthened. gun control advocates are up against a vehement and sometimes incoherent opposition. one example, alex jones, who has called for piers morgan to be deported because of his positions. last night morgan asked jones why. take a look at the face on the pro-guns side. >> we did it to point out this is globalism, and the mega banks that control the planet and brag they have taken over in bloomberg, ap, reuters, you name it, brag tha
" a thousand-plus page book about the 1988 presidential election. the book chronicled the personalities and idiosyncrasies of candidates like bob dole, mike dukakis and george ber hert walker book. it's the unofficial textbook of washington. if you haven't read it, then you don't get it. richard ben cramer was 62. we'll be right back. i had pain in my pelvic area... and bleeding that wasn't normal for me. she said i had to go to the doctor. turned out i had uterine cancer, a type of gynecologic cancer. i received treatment and we're confident i'll be fine. please listen to your body. if something doesn't feel right for two weeks or longer, see your doctor. get the inside knowledge about gynecologic cancers. knowing can make all the difference in the world. [ male announcer ] the exclusive air suspension in the 2013 ram 1500. ♪ engineered to move heaven and earth. ♪ guts. glory. ram. the new ram 1500. motor trend's 2013 truck of the year. >>> welcome back to "hardball." it's been 25 days thins the shooting in new toup, connecticut, and two years since the massacre in tucson that left
won the election, wendell wilkie, who he beat, with enough is. they remained friends. wilkie said to the president, why do you keep that man so close to you. batman being hopkins. wilkie did not like hot cans and roosevelt set coming out, you may be in the south is sunday and you lenders can, but he asks for not need except to serve me. >> now discussion on the growing numbers of women serving in congress and the act. from "washington journal," this is about 40 minutes. >> joining us now, the president of emily's list. thank you for joining us. >> guest: thank you for being here. postreligious had elections. how did women fare? >> guest: this doesn't mandate. this is an election about an historic member of women sworn in to congress last week. i'm filled with pride to see how these women walking in. this election was about women voters and women's issues, some of which i would've preferred not having debate about, but nevertheless, i really think as we move forward, we'll see more and more women stepping up to run. post out as a result, 20 senators, 81 representatives in 2013. the
of elections, tried to work out something so we can get the accurate information out to your voters. that is the goal of the election officials, get them all the information they need. one of the most significant problems was unusual reports that were inaccurate that had this ripple effect throughout the county that caused huge problems throughout the election. i urge everyone to start working those relationships out now. get out the information. we have less and less and less information for voters, for media, for everyone. build this relationship now. >> ok. >> i want to take all little personal liberty here. i hope when i get back to work i will not be in trouble keeping but i want to talk about how we treat senior citizens. i often think we are not very comfortable. i know we have occurred stop ballot voting. -- curb ballot voting. we have senior citizens coming into the precinct. walking with canes, holding the hands of their children and great-grandchildren. they wanted to participate. some of the captains would get them out of line, bring them to the front of the line. some p
election campaigns, policies matter, as you said. we have enough wealth in this country that there is no reason why anybody in this country should be hungry. there's no reason why anybody in this country should be poor. it is an atrocity that so many children in the united states grow up in poverty. it is totally against the ideas that this country was founded on, that are powerful ideals that resonate with many people. what the occupy movement correctly is picking up on is, the government has not been responsive. it has been part of the problem. it has been creating policies that have made the situation for people worse, and we actually need better policies. we are not technically limited, we are politically limited. >> next question. >> in the interest of gender balance, i offered my spot to the young woman behind me, and she demurs, so here i am. i wish the entirety of this conversation or focused on the democratic party, whether it is and allied of our struggles and interest or not, and what, if anything, might be an alternative to that politically, not just in civil
that much of this is de influence of foreigners? will you stand down for elections next year? >> i want us to remember why we went to afghanistan. we went into afghanistan because thousand americans were viciously murdered by a terrorist organization that was operating openly and at the invitation of those who were then ruling afghanistan. it was absolutely the right thing for us to go after that organization, to go after the host government that had aided and abetted or at least allowed for these attacks to take place, and because of the core with worked of our men and women in uniform and because of the corporation and the sacrifices of afghans who had also been brutalized by the then host government, we achieved our central goal, which is -- or have come very close to achieving the central goal -- which is to decapaticate al qaeda. everything we have done over the last 10 years, from the perspective of the u.s. national security interests have been focused on that came. and at the end of this conflict, we are going to be able to say that the sacrifices that were made by those men and wo
. >> look, the nra spent a lot of money on the elections last cycle and didn't have a lot to show for it, especially if you look at the senate and a lot of their candidates lost and, we're looking at return on investment, they had a very low return on investment. but, of course the nra is a very strong lobby and, i think the issue here is, who is going to represent the voices of the american people in this debate? we are talking about things that seem like common sense to the american people and they understand we need to protect people's rights to own a gun in their own home an protect themselves but there is something tragically wrong when there is mass slaughter and we have to solve the problem -- >>... launching a campaign. there is talk about raising money, big grassroots effort. organizational. >> absolutely. and, i think the issue here, really, is bringing the voices in. so, we need the leadership of the president and i expect the president to play a strong leadership role but progressive organizations will be working with the states to show that we have the voice and really... an
, such that they have to, you know, that's what they need to do to win their go into general election they will he' lose to more moderate sounding democrats on this issue, and that democrats retake control of the house? >> well, i'd like to see harry reid with so many of his members from red states vulnerable in the coming election, and like to see the response he gets if he proposes to bring forward any serious gun restriction. i don't think it's coming out of the senate. i think too many in the senate majority leader's caucus would say no thank you, no thank you, mr. reid, the chances of a vote coming in the house-- >> see you soon. fly-over country or the heartland. in colorado, a state that's seen its fair share of tragic shootings, the state's legislature is considering several bills to regulate guns. as lawmakers worked earlier this week, 150 worried guns rights activists quietly marched outside to protest the still unwritten been control measures. here is more from the new democratic speaker of the house and some in the crowd. >> a lot of these things can be preempted or eliminated altogether if
's an assumption to put somebody in place to end that. if mitt romney was elected, did we ever accomplish what he wanted to do as a candidate? reimplement don't ask don't tell? he never really addressed that. >> right. >> if a republican president were nominating somebody with a history of chuck hagel, there's more cause for alarm but they have such a good record of gay rights. >> i understand that but democrats i think and certainly groups like hrc would be far less inclined to roll over and come around had this been a republican appointee. >> that's because -- >> that's part of it. >> but why should they trust a republican president and trust a republican nominee saying that comment 15 years ago is not reflected in the policies when the republican party has not done anything favorable to them on a policy ground? >> the gay rights question will not be the big issue in the confirmation hearings. it will be about israel and this attempt by the right to tar him as anti-really and perhaps anti-semitic. the guy voted to fund israel, voted to sanction iran and target hamas. and yet still people talk a
in the next election, in fact, we lost the house for multiple reasons. but that was one of them. and -- but they came back in this period between election and now in the lame duck period and said they would do it again. it was so important to our country. >> we'll see. the fact of the matter is, where this goes, what is the political will as far as the white house is concerned, they can make a pragmatic argument that if they go with a smaller package it actually has a chance of passing if it has consensus but it could disappoint a lot of folks that want to see the white house go bigger and bolder on this issue. >>> afghan president hamid karzai is in town. he's going to be discussing the u.s. role in afghanistan post-2014. the u.s. or at least the white house is signaling it wants out of afghanistan and the white house disclosing a zero option. that is withdrawal or bust as a negotiating tactic. that's what this is. while troop levels aren't formally on the menu, the scope and size of the post-2014 force will be the focus of this trip by karzai and includes he's got meetings at
will encourage elected officials to prevent gun violence and communicate directly with the constituents. very strong language and an op-ed in the u"usa today" she goes after the gun lobby saying special interests purporting to represent gun owners but really advancing the interests of an ideological fringe have used big money and influence to cow congress into submission, rather than working to find the balance between our rights and the regulation of a dangerous product. she goes on to say these groups have cast simple protections for our communities as existential threats to individual liberties. also speaking to abc news, a couple of comments we saw on "good morning america" this morning, let's listen to one of them here. >> okay. >> i have a gun. gabby and i are both gun owners. we are strong supporters of the second amendment, but we've got to do something to keep the guns from getting into the wrong hands. >> when it can happen to children in a classroom, it's time to say -- >> enough. >> so there's the timing, there's their personal experience, all of that coming to bear now as they ta
, are the nra is spent a lot of money on the elections last cycle and they didn't have to lot to show for it especially if you look at the senate. a lot of their candidates lost and they had a very if we are looking at return on investment they had a very low return on investment. of course, the nra s a strong lobby. the issue here is who s going to represent the voices of the american people in this debate. things that seem like common sense to the american people. they scrub stand that we need to protect people's right to own a gun in their own home and protect themselves but there is something tragically wrong when there is mass slaughter so we have to solve this problem and i think getting -- >> chris: it are you going to launch a campaign. talk about raisin money and big grass roots organization. >> and the thing is bringing the voices in. we need the leadership of the president and i expect the president president to play a strong leadership role. progressive organizations will work in the states and make sure that we have the voice and we wily have the american people and even
and says he's ready to be tough on gun control but remember the president doesn't have to worry about re-election ever again. so expect his second term agenda to look a lot like this. full of overtures to the base which criticized him over the last four years for caving to republicans. to help decipher what to expect in the next four years, we start with nbc's peter alexander outside of the white house and "the washington post" david nakamura. peter, look, you could describe the first term and the first few months since being re-elected as a confident obama. making bold cabinet picks. laying out a very ambitious agenda, adding gun legislation to the docket or you could describe it as almost confident. you know, he backed away from the susan rice pick. he gave in on taxing the top income earners at the rate he wanted. and so far he's really just tiptoed kind of cautiously around gun control. so this a confident obama based on the agenda you're seeing or a caution one? >> reporter: focusing on foreign policy, i think you'd have to say this is a confident president obama right now. just consider the
of elected office have admitted this and we all know that, you know, eventually they're going to go after the middle class and it says, one of the ways they've already decided to do this is going, using the, limiting deductions and in fact, i should add that people earning, couples who earn 130,000 each, individually, fall into this category where they start to lose deductions. this isn't particularly rich, particularly in you live in new york. >> if they're joint filers, over $250,000 threshold and when it begins to phase out. dan. >> paul, the democrats believe this generation of democrats believe that over the last 40 or 50 years the united states made all of these social commitments to the population, social security, medicare, medicaid, now obamacare. >> paul: well, we have. >> and we have. and they think, the conventional wisdom shall the simpson-bowles type argument is, we can't afford this, that out 25 years from now, all of our taxes will be going to pay for these things. the obama democrats believe we made these commitments and we have to find a way to pay for them. they do not
with the congress about who deleted references to al-qaeda three weeks before the election. i think it was purposefully done and i want to know who did it before we move forward. >> you're committed to holding the nomination up? >> yeah. i don't want to. but i'm not going to let the administration get away from having to be held accountable. the state department, you will hear from hillary clinton. who did change the talking points and take al-qaeda out? what did the president do in seven hours? they are making two movies about the strong leadership and the bin laden raid. this administration leaked every detail about the bin laden raid so the world would know how strong their own national security. when you have a major debacle like benghazi you can't get basic information four months later. i don't think they are pursuing offenders aggressively, frankly. they are stonewalling the congress. john brennanbe nor anyone else should be concerned as the acting director of the c.i.a. until the c.i.a. accounts for their role in changing the talking points. >> bret: director was asked about
not the most easy one. >> the new conservative dominance of policy thinking ended when barack obama was elected president. but today was the day that the obama administration made the single biggest play to define what comes next. what is t next. today, he nominated chuck hagel, in doing, he nominated the first vietnam veteran. >> he understands that sending young americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that is something we only do when it is absolutely necessary. my frame of reference, he has said, is geared to the guy at the bottom who is doing the fighting and the dying. with chuck, our troops will always know just like sergeant hagel was there for his own brother, secretary hagel will be there for you. and finally, chuck represents the bipartisan tradition that we need more of in washington. for his independence, and commitment to consensus, he has earned the respect of national security and military leaders, republicans and democrats, including me. >> hagel will be the third republican secretary of defense appointed by the last two democratic presidents. william cohen, and bob ga
rockefeller announced he will not seek reelection when his term ends in 2014. he is first elected to the senate in 1984. he served as the governor of west virginia from 1977 until 1985. this is about 20 minutes. >> thank you, sharon. so incredibly much. a perfect life, by far the most popular rockefeller and west virginia. -- wife, by far, the most popular rockefeller in west virginia. i will get right to them. i have decided not to run again at the conclusion of this term. not now, but in 2014. i hope each of you can understand that this is an entirely personal decision. it is not a political decision and it is not easy. it is simply this. as i approached 50 years of nonstop public service, precluding time with the children and sharon. i consider the ways for travel in life. there are many other ways, and i know deep within me that in 2014, it is the right time for me to recalibrate and find a new balance. i came as an untrained social worker back in 1964. i actually begun my public service for years before that, working for the peace corps and the department of state. frankly, i
. and we just had an election. and elections have consequences, alex. and i think the congressman is absolutely right that we are now drifting toward a parliamentary system. but we don't have a parliamentary system. we have a different system. and in our system the results of the election are meaningful. and the results of this election should suggest to democrats and republicans that the president, unless there is some egregious problem, deserves to have his own choices in government. >> alex, let me just say, the senate has the responsibility to advise and consent. and given the filibuster rules you have to find five republicans, and he'll find out quickly who his friends are. people forget that this election, the republicans held the house. although institutionally they have a majority there, given voting rights and the way the districts are created, the president's got to come to grips with that and somehow both sides are going to find their way out of this. it's going to be just two years of being in the ring, exchanging punches. >> but ultimately, jonathan, your take on chuc
. on election he is feeling good about himself and feeling like there can be no opposition to his position and so it doesn't seem, he doesn't seem terribly concerned there is not a lot of concern for chuck hagel. >> another nomination will be for treasury secretary as well. perhaps jack lu who is currently the chief of staff at white house is the leading candidate. how would you vote on lu? >> i would have to look at his record and listen to what he has to say. i will tell you my view on any treasury secretary would be that i would want to hear some real proposals for growth. and this whole debate about the fiscal cliff we have been talking about taxes and talking about spending. noticeably absent from the equation has been growth. and the biggest economic problem of the last four years has been the dismal economic growth. under barack obama our economy has grown 1.5% a year for four years. less than half the historical -- >> this gets no the whole idea of retooling the republican party under the heading of opportunity conservativism which i would like to get into in just a second. do you
that is a very important question. or take, for example, something we talked about a lot during the election. that is private equity managers and many hedge funds managers who can treat their income as capital gains, and even the new deal -- >> bob, here is the problem with what you're saying -- >> steve, you'll agree with me on this, i'm sure. >> here is the problem, we agree we should get rid of all of these loopholes. this is interesting, erin, that when mitt romney talked about this in the campaign of putting a cap on these deductions, it was the democrats, people like robert reich, maybe not you personally, but people of your philosophy who said we can't do that. here's the point -- >> we actually do believe -- >> what? >> i don't know why democrats aren't in favor of putting a cap on those deductions. i'm saying if we're going to get something done on this, erin, what is going to have to happen is democrats are going to have to agree to reduce the tax rates in exchange for getting rid of the loopholes. >> or we're going to have to raise taxes on everyone, as npr ran the numbers. if you
before the election this year, but did not get released until after the election for some reason, the official pentagon support on the readiness of afghan security forces says far from afghan security forces being ready to take the lead, it says out of 23 afghan army brigades, only one of those 23 brigades is capable of operating independently without support from international or u.s. troops. this is the graphic in that report that says that. brilliant graphic, right? this is how the pentagon presents data that it doesn't really want to make headlines. but i can interpret it for you. you see the 23 i've circled there? that's the number of brigades. how many brigades can operate, you see there, independent with advisers? well, oh, one. 1 of 23. even if you're bad at math, you can tell that's not good. the same report, the pentagon's own report shows after the u.s. troop surge in afghanistan, violence in that country was actually higher than it was before the surge, not lower than it was before the surge. so in what case was the surge a success? so it is a bit rich that the reason
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 157 (some duplicates have been removed)